Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/522

 cation is made for it, and it would indeed be difficult to discern how it would be possible for a trial court to abuse its discretion by refusing to submit a special verdict.

Litigants, under the constitution: and laws of this state, in cases involving questions of fact properly triable to a jury, are entitled to have such cases submitted to the jury for a general verdict, accompanied by proper instructions of law, and this procedure will, as a rule, satisfy all litigants except those who desire the use of a special verdict, the use of which affords much opportunity for the exercise of technical procedure, with the result that it is not difficult to insert reversible error in the record, thus at least delaying, and often defeating, justice.

We conclude that the giving of the general instructions in the circumstances of this case was reversible and prejudicial error. We further conclude that it was like error to have submitted the general verdicts in connection with the special verdict, in the circumstances in which they were submitted.

It may be well to notice that the defendants objected to the questions prepared comprising the special verdict and the submission thereof to the jury, and this on several different grounds not necessary here to mention. Objections of this nature were quite fully considered in York v. General Utility Corporation, 176 N. W. 355.

The judgment appealed from is reversed. The case is remanded for a new trial. Appellant is entitled to his costs and disbursements on appeal.

, J., concurs in the result.

, J. (concurring specially). I concur in the result of the decision as written by Mr. Chief Justice Grace. The verdict and the judgment is grossly excessive, and for that reason alone a new trial should be granted. It is not the purpose of the law to aid one party in robbing another. While the plaintiff did not sustain actual damages in excess of $10, or, at most, $20, he bases the action on a verified complaint asserting and claiming damages to the amount of $5,000. When a complaint for a personal injury is so grossly and obviously untrue, the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover a dollar in excess of actual damages. And in such a case, when an action is prosecuted by an attorney, as it generally is, for half the amount recovered, the court should